Celia Rodriguez Salinas v. United States of America, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

CELIA RODRIGUEZ SALINAS CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-0831

VERSUS JUDGE ALEXANDER C. VAN HOOK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AYO

ORDER

Celia Rodirguez Salines (“Salinas”) has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Record Document 4, and a motion for injunctive relief, Record Document 7. The habeas petition is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for recommendation. Record Document 4. For the following reasons, the motion for injunctive relief is DENIED. Record Document 7. In his motion, Salinas argued that his continued detention is unconstitutional under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) where the United States Supreme Court held that post-removal detention must be limited “to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States.” 533 U.S. at 689. To obtain Zadvydas relief, the petitioner “has the initial burden to show that post-removal-order detention has surpassed six months, and to ‘provide good cause to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Uriostegui Rios v. Trump, No. 25-1320, 2026 WL 810556, at *2 (W.D. La. Mar. 24, 2026). Here, Salinas has not met his initial burden for relief under Zadvydas. In his petition, Salinas acknowledged that he has not received a final order of removal. As such, his continued detention remains “presumptively reasonable,” and his Zaduydas challenge is premature. Agyet-Kodie v. Holder, 418 F. App’x 317, 317 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding the challenge to “continued post removal order detention is premature” where the detainee “has not been in post-removal-order detention longer than the presumptively reasonable six month period|.]”). DONE AND SIGNED at Shreveport, Louisiana, this 22nd day of May, 2026.

Uy ©. Ve lhak ALEXANDER C. VAN HOOK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE